Apple pulls products from green electronics registry

Its laptops, desktops, and monitors will no longer be certified by EPEAT.

Apple recently asked EPEAT, a national registry of environmentally sound desktops, notebooks, and displays, to remove 39 of its products from the group's list. EPEAT is one of the largest eco-friendly certifying agencies in the country, funded by the EPA and a coalition of manufacturers, including Apple.

Certain schools, government agencies, and businesses require their IT departments to buy EPEAT-certified products, so Apple's move could eliminate them as an option for many institutions.

But Apple, a company that has made a big deal in public about being environmentally conscious—from getting rid of certain toxic chemicals in its components to buildingdata centers that run on renewable energy—will not seek the stamp of approval carried by over 2,000 other devices sold in the United States. To earn EPEAT (short for Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) certification, "recyclers need to be able to easily disassemble products, with common tools, to separate toxic components, like batteries," the Wall Street Journal's Joel Schectman reports.

That restriction could be the reason Apple is stepping back from EPEAT. As Ars reported in June, the new Retina MacBook Pro shaves millimeters off Apple's previous notebook's size, but it can be difficult, if not impossible, to take apart. "The battery is glued in and pretty much non-serviceable by users, so don't count on saving some money by doing it yourself," Chris Foresman wrote. The LCD on the retina is glued into the notebook, and similarly difficult to remove.

But Apple is removing all of its products from EPEAT's registry, even older desktops that had once been certified. Indeed, the new, non-retina MacBook Pro fared well in iFixit's reparability rating (which would comply with EPEAT's "easy-to-disassemble" rule). "Apple uses regular (non-proprietary) screws in the non-retina MacBook Pro," Jacqui Cheng wrote, and, "while the non-retina MacBook Pro's LCD would still cost a pretty penny to replace, the LCD is at least removable and users who have cracked their displays won't have to replace the entire assembly. This is not the case with the retina version."

Still, "[Apple] said their design direction was no longer consistent with the EPEAT requirements," Robert Frisbee, CEO of EPEAT, told the Journal. "They were important supporters and we are disappointed that they don’t want their products measured by this standard anymore."

Apple still offers recycling programs through its website. Shaw Wu, an analyst at Sterne Agee, speculated to the Wall Street Journal that Apple might create an alternate standard for its own products. That however, is purely speculation at this point.

Promoted Comments

Actually, a non-user-serviceable product might end up being "greener." By making you take your product to an Apple Store for repair, all failed components can be harvested and suitably disposed of. An individual doing his/her own repairs might just chuck failed parts in the trash either out of laziness or ignorance. Granted, Apple's way is more expensive for the customer, but that's not really unusual. If all of Apple's products go the way of MBP-R, then the company can lay down a green claim by saying no parts ever hit the landfill.

"Non user replaceable" is not the same thing as "easily separated toxic components" though. If you were recycling a MacBook Pro which had a glued-in battery, but the battery could be broken out intact by flexing the case the right way, it might still be easy to separate without being user-replaceable.

Oh, and "all of ITS products" not "it's" - I'd expect better from a staff editor.

It's strange that Apple pulled all their computers out of the registry, even ones which were already certified Gold.

To do it over a single system (Retina MBP) is even stranger. Most companies on the registry do not have all their machines certified, it's not unusual at all.

Now I can see how EPEAT wasn't becoming very relevant, especially to Apple as they don't certify any tablets or mobile phones, but it does sound like there was some deeper disagreement.

However, as long as Apple keep their recycling policies and strict pollution guidelines intact, it's good reputation with Greenpeace should not be affected by this.

Pretty much this. It's certainly a strange move and it seems to me that Apple and EPA has come to some disagreement on the future of the standard and Apple chose to take their toys and go home. Like you say, if Apple still manages to keep a high or very high level or recycling in combination with preventing pollution nothing will be lost (other than potentially some government related sales).

Looks like Apple is still keeping Energy Star and RoHS ratings though.

Like others, I suspect this is a hint that the design and build teams at Apple are planning to make their future products virtually unfixable, perhaps difficult to upgrade, and definitely a disaster to recycle.

That indicates a woeful lack of talent on those teams. My white MacBook is brilliantly designed to let me replace the hard drive and upgrade the RAM is just a few minutes. There's no reason why Apple couldn't be showing similar skills with upcoming devices.

I'm sure this is little bit more complicated then a little black and white view. Apple probably disagreed (or was fed-up) with the requirements of EPEAT. When you really think about it: What does repairability really has to do with recycability? I'm sure when you send your old rMBP to Apple (or the firm they are outsourcing this to) they are qualified enough to break the entire thing down to it's components and recycle them. It's a huge profit from the unibody case alone and not even speaking of the Lithium.

Point is: From a recyclers standpoint the rMBP might be just a as recyclable as any Dell laptop. So Apple might have pulled out because the coupling of repairability = recycling seems stupid to them (and obviously it is, otherwise they would not have succeeded with thinning down the MBP)

Looks like Apple is still keeping Energy Star and RoHS ratings though.

Correct, Apple have to comply with RoHS in order to sell in the EU, plus they have to comply with Europe's WEEE (Electronic Waste) regulations which state that Apple must take back any old equipment for recycling free of charge either in-store or via free-post - something they do worldwide anyway.

"Non user replaceable" is not the same thing as "easily separated toxic components" though. If you were recycling a MacBook Pro which had a glued-in battery, but the battery could be broken out intact by flexing the case the right way, it might still be easy to separate without being user-replaceable.

Oh, and "all of ITS products" not "it's" - I'd expect better from a staff editor.

I'm sure this is little bit more complicated then a little black and white view. Apple probably disagreed (or was fed-up) with the requirements of EPEAT. When you really think about it: What does repairability really has to do with recycability? I'm sure when you send your old rMBP to Apple (or the firm they are outsourcing this to) they are qualified enough to break the entire thing down to it's components and recycle them. It's a huge profit from the unibody case alone and not even speaking of the Lithium.

Point is: From a recyclers standpoint the rMBP might be just a as recyclable as any Dell laptop. So Apple might have pulled out because the coupling of repairability = recycling seems stupid to them (and obviously it is, otherwise they would not have succeeded with thinning down the MBP)

This. A simplified version of repairability ≠ recyclability would be a glass bottle, break it and it will be nigh impossible to repair but can be recycled if it is sent to a relevant processing plant.

"Non user replaceable" is not the same thing as "easily separated toxic components" though. If you were recycling a MacBook Pro which had a glued-in battery, but the battery could be broken out intact by flexing the case the right way, it might still be easy to separate without being user-replaceable.

Oh, and "all of ITS products" not "it's" - I'd expect better from a staff editor.

Actually, a non-user-serviceable product might end up being "greener." By making you take your product to an Apple Store for repair, all failed components can be harvested and suitably disposed of. An individual doing his/her own repairs might just chuck failed parts in the trash either out of laziness or ignorance. Granted, Apple's way is more expensive for the customer, but that's not really unusual. If all of Apple's products go the way of MBP-R, then the company can lay down a green claim by saying no parts ever hit the landfill, especially if they'd offer a buy-back/credit on old Mac hardware.

It's strange that Apple pulled all their computers out of the registry, even ones which were already certified Gold.

To do it over a single system (Retina MBP) is even stranger. Most companies on the registry do not have all their machines certified, it's not unusual at all.

Now I can see how EPEAT wasn't becoming very relevant, especially to Apple as they don't certify any tablets or mobile phones, but it does sound like there was some deeper disagreement.

However, as long as Apple keep their recycling policies and strict pollution guidelines intact, it's good reputation with Greenpeace should not be affected by this.

But it should hurt their relations with pro-green groups. Pulling existing certified products speaks to a lack of commitment regardless of other actions as well as a willingness to just pick and choose how they will be ecologically conscious.

The "take all their toys and go home" attitude which someone else mentioned is an ongoing problem with Apple. It is just not a mature company of any character; they make decisions like children.

The idea that Apple is developing a different standard doesn't do anything about the issue of pulling out of the current EPEAT group. The right way would be to introduce a new, better standard which could cover other devices like tables, cell phones, and heavily integrated laptops and try to use public sway to get that standard integrated as a tier in EPEAT. No need to have competing standards in the marketplace just because a conference call or meeting doesn't go your way.

Apple makes the most expensive throw away products. Their parts are ridiculously over priced, as well as the initial product.

Take the ram for instance. If I buy the ram or a hard rive for an apple it will be 3 to 5 times more expensive than if I just match the product to a PC equal. At least I can by PC ram or a hard drive and it is the same thing with out the stupid apple stamp. Just saying apple wants you to tos out their junk so you will buy a new one.

Even if they didn't take all the steps to make it so hard to service, technology grows so fast you almost have to replace your stuff every 4 or 5 years anyway. But to truly be green these devices should be more repairable. Older devices get re-purposed for simpler task in the future.

I hate working on apple products, but so many people buy them with the idea macs don't get viruses or break which is total crap. Apple recently reworded their website because they finally had to admit(meaning they lied for years) they are not invincible to malware.

If you like apple get Ubuntu its nearly the same thing. with out all the so thin it is fragile bull shit.

i have a generally favorable opinion of apple and their products, but i hope they get the razzing they deserve for epoxy-sealing the new macbook.

They want you to buy a new one. Most regular PC shops reject apple repairs because of all the trouble associated with them. Seriously stop buying their shit it is over priced junk. Think about it, it is so thin it is fragile. They have to use glue to give it rigidness, or it would crack when you close it from tweaking.

Apple makes the most expensive throw away products. Their parts are ridiculously over priced, as well as the initial product.

"Over-priced is relative to a) what people are willing to pay for something, and b) what value it gives to its users. On both accounts I disagree with you, they are not over priced (nobody can match Apple when it comes to MacBook Air-like products, or iPad-like products or iMac-like products. And on the second count there are more to a product than featureitis. Apple products have historically had excellent resell and second hand value, strongly suggesting that they are not throw-away products.

driftmachine wrote:

Take the ram for instance. If I buy the ram or a hard rive for an apple it will be 3 to 5 times more expensive than if I just match the product to a PC equal. At least I can by PC ram or a hard drive and it is the same thing with out the stupid apple stamp. Just saying apple wants you to tos out their junk so you will buy a new one.

Which is why you only buy your ewe from Apple. Oh, you're talking about RAM

driftmachine wrote:

Even if they didn't take all the steps to make it so hard to service, technology grows so fast you almost have to replace your stuff every 4 or 5 years anyway. But to truly be green these devices should be more repairable. Older devices get re-purposed for simpler task in the future.

I hate working on apple products, but so many people buy them with the idea macs don't get viruses or break which is total crap. Apple recently reworded their website because they finally had to admit(meaning they lied for years) they are not invincible to malware.

i have a generally favorable opinion of apple and their products, but i hope they get the razzing they deserve for epoxy-sealing the new macbook.

They want you to buy a new one. Most regular PC shops reject apple repairs because of all the trouble associated with them.

Citation direly needed, because Apple pays repair shops for handling repairs, why would they turn down a profitable business?

driftmachine wrote:

Think about it, it is so thin it is fragile. They have to use glue to give it rigidness, or it would crack when you close it from tweaking.

They use metal to give it rigidness, not glue. metal enclosure and metal screws, now you think about it, aluminium and stainless steel is quite rigid. The glue is for keeping the battery flush against the metal. It is a reason MacBook Pros and Airs are given such positive reviews for build quality, and that reason is that it is rigid due to the aluminum body. Even the (generally critical of Apple) iFixit guys give Apple credit for this.

Actually, a non-user-serviceable product might end up being "greener." By making you take your product to an Apple Store for repair, all failed components can be harvested and suitably disposed of. An individual doing his/her own repairs might just chuck failed parts in the trash either out of laziness or ignorance. Granted, Apple's way is more expensive for the customer, but that's not really unusual. If all of Apple's products go the way of MBP-R, then the company can lay down a green claim by saying no parts ever hit the landfill, especially if they'd offer a buy-back/credit on old Mac hardware.

Nonsense, Apple would have just as big trouble seperating the battery from the rest of the computer as everyone would have. The whole point of user-servicable is that you can take it apart and sort batteries in one pile, plastics in another pile, metal and so on. That is rather difficult when everything is glued to everything else.

[Another nail in the coffin of any hopes for Apple resurrecting enterprise support.

Very likely. I suppose BYOD(evice) isn't very huge in the real world?

It is actually a growing trend, which is why Apple's move doesn't matter so much.

When employees are increasingly using their own devices for work, it really doesn't matter whether they meet corporate purchasing guidelines. It's the employees doing the purchasing, not the enterprise.

As long as the devices meet the IT department's BYOT/BYOD guidelines, there is no worry.

I'm most concerned about this, personally, since my employer purchases only EPEAT-certified hardware, and we're about 95% Mac. I'd venture to say that the high-performance community as a whole is probably >75% Mac. This is gonna hurt. Having to re-purchase all of the software for Windows or Linux will be way expensive.

Apple makes the most expensive throw away products. Their parts are ridiculously over priced, as well as the initial product.

Take the ram for instance. If I buy the ram or a hard rive for an apple it will be 3 to 5 times more expensive than if I just match the product to a PC equal. At least I can by PC ram or a hard drive and it is the same thing with out the stupid apple stamp. Just saying apple wants you to tos out their junk so you will buy a new one.

Even if they didn't take all the steps to make it so hard to service, technology grows so fast you almost have to replace your stuff every 4 or 5 years anyway. But to truly be green these devices should be more repairable. Older devices get re-purposed for simpler task in the future.

I hate working on apple products, but so many people buy them with the idea macs don't get viruses or break which is total crap. Apple recently reworded their website because they finally had to admit(meaning they lied for years) they are not invincible to malware.

If you like apple get Ubuntu its nearly the same thing. with out all the so thin it is fragile bull shit.

Nonsense, Apple would have just as big trouble seperating the battery from the rest of the computer as everyone would have. The whole point of user-servicable is that you can take it apart and sort batteries in one pile, plastics in another pile, metal and so on. That is rather difficult when everything is glued to everything else.

I'm sure they have a serviceability plan. If not, a battery recall would be quite ugly.

You removing the batteries would probably void the warranty. A qualified Apple tech is authorized to do so. Like it or not, it seems as though Apple is all but making you use their services for any repair.

Perhaps they are looking to force a discussion on changing the standards and are willing to give up some sales of Macs to enterprises and governments in the interim (the Mac is 15% of Apple's revenue so they can afford the lost sales). That might explain why they pulled all their products, even products that qualified for EPEAT ratings before. The MacBook Air has long been non-user serviceable but had still managed to get an EPEAT certification. There's no reason to believe the 2012 wouldn't have been had they submitted it.

Apple will need to balance the negative PR with the potential benefits. It will be interesting to see if any analysts bring it up on the earnings call in a few weeks.

I'm sure they have a serviceability plan. If not, a battery recall would be quite ugly.

You removing the batteries would probably void the warranty. A qualified Apple tech is authorized to do so. Like it or not, it seems as though Apple is all but making you use their services for any repair.

True, but that may not necessarily be an issue with most people. Cars have gotten to the point where it is increasingly difficult to find independent service shops for all but basic maintenance. However, they are also more reliable in general. With PCs, the replacement cycle has gotten to the point where it may not make sense to "fix" them. Instead, it may be easier to just "junk" it by sending it back to the manufacturer for recycling and buying a new one.